Monical v. Marion County Jail

── Monical v. Marion County Jail ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRADLEY W. MONICAL, No. 23-1506 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 6:18-cv-00103-YY v. MEMORANDUM* MARION COUNTY JAIL; JASON MYERS; MARION COUNTY JAIL COMMANDER; CINDY GAGE; STACEY HEADRICK; DEPUTY DUNNBARR; DEPUTY FRIEZE; JOHN DOE 1; DEPUTY JOHN DOE 2; COMMANDER TAD LARSON; DEPUTY STRAUS; DEPUTY MCGOWAN; DEPUTY KNOSPE; KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK LLC; COUNTY OF MARION; JACOB RAMSY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 14, 2026** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Bradley Monical, an Oregon state inmate, appeals from the district court’s judgment in his prisoner civil rights action alleging claims against Marion County Jail and Keefe Commissary. The district court granted summary judgment on the First Amendment claims and dismissed the remaining claims pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) for failure to exhaust available remedies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the exhaustion factual findings for clear error and legal rulings and summary judgment de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171, 1173 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to his request for admissions, which were served less than 30 days prior to the close of discovery. See D. Or. Local Rule Civ. P. 16-2(e)(4) (“The Court will not require a response to a discovery request that is made with insufficient time for a party to respond before the completion of discovery date.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (requiring a response within thirty days of service). The district court acts within its discretion when it denies a motion for failure to comply with local rules. Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012). In any event, plaintiff did not establish that he suffered actual and substantial prejudice from the denial of discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the standard). 2 23-1506  The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions because defendants complied with discovery rules. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(B)(iv) specifically exempts proceedings “brought without an attorney by a person in the custody of . . . a state” from Rule 26 initial disclosures. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), in turn, only requires a supplement if the party has made an initial disclosure or responded to a discovery request. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Jackson v. Fong, 870 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2017), does not apply to this case and exempt plaintiff from complying with the PLRA. Unlike Jackson, who was released from all custody and no longer a prisoner when he filed the operative complaint, id. at 932, 937, plaintiff was transferred from the jail to prison and remained in